The Box Two

Decided to start a new thread rather than derail THE BOX
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ox-191736.html
or take it on a tangent.

Talking of derailing and tangents, Here is the dilemma.
With no personal gain involved here, but still some questions of conscience.

A train is hurtling down the track about to kill 20 people.
You are stood at the junction box and could divert it to another track, but this would kill just one other person.

Would you:
A) Allow the Twenty People to Die,
or
B) Choose to kill one other person to save twenty people.


or c) pretend you haven't seen this thread and avoid considering this question.

why would anyone do anything but option B? it's so far from close i feel like i'm missing the point

let them die, destiny yo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpm

why would anyone do anything but option B? it's so far from close i feel like i'm missing the point

---

A lot of people basically chose this option in the other box thread by saying that taking the money (by killing one person) was ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpm

why would anyone do anything but option B? it's so far from close i feel like i'm missing the point

---

option B requires a conscious decision to personally kill someone.

while option A could be defended as not my problem, why should I get involved.

Generally when people say they wouldn't press the button, it's because they're not considering a scenario in which they have absolute certainty. With absolute certainty, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who wouldn't push the button, but without absolute certainty, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who would

This question results with people saying theyd save the 20 by killing the 1.

Interestingly enough, if the situation changes slightly and you're told that pushing someone onto the tracks would trigger some emergency stop mechanism upon impact, thus saving 20 people, most would say they wouldnt push him onto the tracks.

Is the one person my brother-in-law?

I would pray to Jesus probs, let him decide.

The more interesting scenario, is you are standing on a bridge overlooking a runaway trolley car. It is about to hit a group of 10 people. You realize the super fat person next to you would stop the trolley car and thereby save the 10 people. Do you push him off the bridge into the path of the trolley car to save these 10 people?

oh lawd jesus.

Is there a way to push the one person into the group of 20 so I can get a high score

this is 1 too many boxes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

A lot of people basically chose this option in the other box thread by saying that taking the money (by killing one person) was ridiculous.

---

Nah I don't think so, I mean, in what way does 20 million guarantee the saving of lives? The knowing killing of a person for financial gain doesn't get erased by spending said money on relief efforts or what have you in some attempt to save the lives of others.

In any case, I don't think it's nearly as black and white as shown in the OP in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Is there a way to push the one person into the group of 20 so I can get a high score

---

You sound like a man raised on Carmageddon. I like your style.

Option B requires a decision to personally kill someone otherwise option A kills 20.My pick is to save the 20 and let the 1 die.
I did like some of these answer thou.
Hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingnat

The more interesting scenario, is you are standing on a bridge overlooking a runaway trolley car. It is about to hit a group of 10 people. You realize the super fat person next to you would stop the trolley car and thereby save the 10 people. Do you push him off the bridge into the path of the trolley car to save these 10 people?

---

make it a super fat kid

but the answer is no, because saving people doesn't guarantee saving people!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penneywize

Nah I don't think so, I mean, in what way does 20 million guarantee the saving of lives? The knowing killing of a person for financial gain doesn't get erased by spending said money on relief efforts or what have you in some attempt to save the lives of others.

In any case, I don't think it's nearly as black and white as shown in the OP in this thread.

---

COOL STORY BRO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

COOL STORY BRO

---

lol u mad.

Do you want to discuss this further or is your assertion of indifference towards my point of view all you want to offer on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

saving people doesn't guarantee saving people!

---

^this

I take the 50% chance to get 10 million and kill one person to save 20 others.

Go over to the switch machine
Open that bitch up
Expose the relays which control the machine
Activate the switch machine
Remove the relays before ~5 seconds, otherwise the switch will fully deploy
Derail that fucking train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supa

this is 1 too many boxes

---

Said no man at an orgy ever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Said no man at an orgy ever

---

Hahaha "There is entirely too much pussy in this room."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

This question results with people saying theyd save the 20 by killing the 1.

Interestingly enough, if the situation changes slightly and you're told that pushing someone onto the tracks would trigger some emergency stop mechanism upon impact, thus saving 20 people, most would say they wouldnt push him onto the tracks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingnat

The more interesting scenario, is you are standing on a bridge overlooking a runaway trolley car. It is about to hit a group of 10 people. You realize the super fat person next to you would stop the trolley car and thereby save the 10 people. Do you push him off the bridge into the path of the trolley car to save these 10 people?

---

Clearly you have heard this classical philosophical dilemma before.

I actually half combined the two scenarios anyway to make it clearly a conscious decision.

I wanted to get directly at the question of not only whether saving twenty people justified killing one but also if anyone would choose to do it in the split second they had the opportunity to make a difference.

As I god loving Christian, I'd throw myself on to the tracks, saving everyone.

Don't bump your own fucking dumb thread. As you know, this is poor etiquette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

As I god loving Christian, I'd throw myself on to the tracks, saving everyone.

---

You'd die knowing you've saved so many lives. They'd all die knowing they saw some moron commit suicide.

Silence infidel! My god has said you will be there for me to sacrifice in his name. I will be rewarded with eternal life and a fine selection of cheeses.